in the vote thread Isobras made the unsupported allegation that the media is liberal. I am wanting to find this liberal media. Just because the right wing yell that does not make it so. Just like they also big lie that Fox is "fair and balanced".

So lets be specific with real examples.

So we have for example radio, not one national partisan liberal, yes we have Rush, Laura, Savage, Oriely, Beck, Alan Keys, Dr. Laura, too many religious right shows like Pat Robertson, Paul Harvey, Mike Huckibee, Mike Reagan, Mike Livin, Neil Bortz. anyway talker magazine shows that about 90+ percent not including the religious programming is very partisan right wing.

when we go to print, the most syndicated in the world are george Will, william safire. Largest circulation paper in the USA is Wall street journal (rupport murdock who owns Fox and more media than any other person in the world. second largest is USA today. USA today is Ganett company

Quote:

No question, Gannett has some well-known assets. The nationís largest newspaper publisher owns some 82 dailies across the country, including the Des Moines Register and USA Today. It also runs 23 TV stations, including Washingtonís WUSA/Channel 9.

Gannett Company, Inc. was founded in 1923 by Frank Gannett in Rochester, New York as an outgrowth of a newspaper business he had begun in Elmira, New York in 1906. Gannett, who was known as a conservative,[9] gained fame and fortune by purchasing small independent newspapers and developing them into a large chain, a 20th century trend that helped the newspaper industry remain financially viable.[10] By 1979, the chain had grown to 79 newspapers.[11]

then we go to TV, GE is a defense contractor/medical/ finance/energy company that owns NBC. they also own MSNBC that only recently in their history put the only partisan liberals on after firing even Phil Donahue with the highest ratings of their people because he was to liberal 10 years ago. But when the dems took over in 2006 the dems were bring up reinstating the fairness doctrine. So NBC did not want liberals on the network so they put them on the cable side.

CBS was owned by a defense contractor Westinghouse for the majority of their existence. CBS recently fired Dan Rather which no liberal would do. Again CBS hired Bush seniors attorney general to look into the matter and he concluded that he could not prove the information in the documents was false. Yet they still fired Dan Rather. No liberal would have done that. CBS also airs or aired people like Dr. laura, Laura Ingram, Smirnaconish with no liberal equivalent partisan nationally. a liberal would not have a problem with having smirn but would have a balance. and would never put stern on without balance too..

ABC fired a libertarian by the name of Bill Mahr for a statement he made agreeing with a conservative. He had a great political show on about 11pm and they still removed him when his rating were growing. No liberal would have removed him. On their radio it is the same, they have had only right wing partisans only. PAUL harvey, Fred Thompson, Huckibee, Mark, Levin, Curtis Silwa, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Imas, Joe Scraborough and not one liberal.

then we have Fox, murdochs empire larger than any person.

We have the tribune company owned by the trust fund kids of General McCormick.

we have rev sun young moon with the washington times.

we have richard mellon scaife owning the Pittsburgh paper.

we have the religious tv and radio channels.

and from the liberal side we have the washington post and they have George Will a as a main writer, Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, Michael Gerson for other conservatives. NYT Bill Krystol, Ross G. Douthat for conservatives.

so I am waiting for the details of the so called liberal media that the right wing so says it is.

Imagine you adore any GOP like Ryan without question.
Then you see a fact checking article in a newspaper that his speech at the convention had several outright lies that a smart guy like Ryan could not have failed to notice.

You are pissed off right away. That is the "liberal press"
It does not matter if that same paper publishes George Will. All those verifiable facts that you wish weren't true are in that paper. It shakes your world so you say it is all left bias and facts don't matter.
Fox presents the same facts but you don't Listen to the news cycle.
You only listen to the opinion hosts and pretend like that is news.

The argument that Paul Ryan "lied' or "misrepresented" the closing of the Janesville GM plant is not even colorable.

Here is what the President said:

"And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, itís where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and thatís the future Iíll fight for as your president." (emphasis supplied.)

Here is what Ryan said:

"My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory.
"A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: 'I believe that if our government is there to support you Ö this plant will be here for another hundred years.' Thatís what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didnít last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And thatís how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight." (emphasis supplied.)
Let's make a few observations that seem to have eluded Ryan's critics.

First, Ryan does not "characterize" or "insinuate" anything about what the President said. He quoted him.

Second, while Ryan did not say that this constituted a "promise" to keep the plant open, the workers in Janesville might have reasonably understood it that way. The clear implication of Obama's words is that he would bring the government's resources to bear to retool plants like Janesville and that this would keep such plants - including this particular one - open.

Ryan's critics want to argue that the workers should have understand a jesuitical distinction. The President, they argue, only said that "if the government provided resources to the plant, then it would be open for a hundred years.'" He never said that he actually would do what he said he could do.

It was just a law professor's hypothetical, you see, an academic discussion with a group of people about to lost their jobs. Obama was saying that "we can help you" but bot that "you can expect that we will."

If that's what candidate Obama meant, then he is the one who misrepresented his intentions and mislead the Janesville workers. To suggest that Obama did not intend to imply anything about the Janesville plant beggars reality. That he has now been hoisted on his own petard is a product of his own doing.

But let's give him the benefit of what seems to be a rather infinitesimal doubt. Ryan did not say that Obama "promised" to keep the plant open, but only that he told voters that the resources of government could be used to keep plants like Janesville and keep them open. In Ryan's view (and he's got the numbers), that hasn't happened. The President has not brought those resources to bear or, if he has, it hasn't worked. The Janesville plant is closed as are many similarly situated plants across the country.

But what about the fact that this plant closure was announced before Obama took office? That is not relevant to Ryan's critique. Obama was arguing that government could retool plants and keep them operational. That didn't happen.

Beyond that, this criticism of Ryan's remarks is cynical and deceptive. Obama knew - everyone knew - the the Janesville plant was on the chopping block. That's why Obama made his remarks. If he thought it was too late to save this plant and keep it open for "a hundred years," why say anything at all?

The plant closed in April 2009. When that happened and for 18 months thereafter, the President of the United States, not only had strong majorities in the Congress. Not only that, the federal govenment run by the President, also soon came to own a controlling interest in GM. Couldn't the government have retooled the shuttered plant that it now owned as the candidate told the people of Janesville it could do?

in the vote thread Isobras made the unsupported allegation that the media is liberal.

Unsupported? The left wing media's own management and ombudsmen openly admit and criticize its bias, in print and on camera, in its own media and sometimes in person on Fox News. Wake up.

support your position.... again unsupported as I stated.

Show me the ownership is liberal. Again if we look at the richest americans or corporations can you name more than 10 liberals in any of those top 100?

again by your own income you admit your main income is/was from right wing government funded corporations.

Here are the largest and most profitable in the US, tell me which of these are liberal. Defense? Medical? Drug, banking, investment, chemical, energy like oil, walmart? which one of those likes liberals....

so tell me who owns the media that is liberal... Murdoch? GE people that put on hours of trash talkers, people that fire Dan Rather for telling the truth, or people who fire Libertarian Bill Mahr?

Do your own homework. My intent is to point you to the facts, not read them to you. Ownership is not a valid metric of bias; it's what's published that counts.

bajaDean wrote:

again by your own income you admit your main income is/was from right wing government funded corporations

.
Admit?"Corporations"? I'm proud to state that my whole family's primary income has been compensation for service to our country in the USAF. What have you voluntarily contributed to your country? Besides, (honest) corporations, of all sizes, are a cornerstone of this nation's extended success.

bajaDean wrote:

Here are the largest and most profitable in the US, tell me which of these are liberal. Defense? Medical? Drug, banking, investment, chemical, energy like oil, walmart? which one of those likes liberals....

None, because liberal ideology opposes success and growth. Its goal is redistribution of the existing mediocre pie rather than baking bigger, better pies for everyone.

bajaDean wrote:

people that fire Dan Rather for telling the truth, or people who fire Libertarian Bill Mahr?

Again, you're making no sense. Rather was fired for fomenting and propagating fabricated stories, and Maher is a GD pig I wouldn't let scrub my septic tank with his bare hands.

bajaDean wrote:

come on support your position.

Been there, done that, for thousand of pages. Read 'em and get back to us; you're late to the party.

The argument that Paul Ryan "lied' or "misrepresented" the closing of the Janesville GM plant is not even colorable.

Here is what the President said:

"And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, itís where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and thatís the future Iíll fight for as your president." (emphasis supplied.)

First Obama said this in Feb 2008. amazing the media does not bring this up... This was months before the entire US economy blew up. Remember under Bush he in was it septemberish fannie freddie hit and Bush brought in the democrats to tell them that the united states of america was about to come to an end. No president has ever told the other party that and he was not kidding.

thus Obamas speech was pre knowledge of the ecomomic collapse of the USA.

If the media was liberal every-time that rommy or Ryan would say things they would remind the fact that the president of the USA brought in the democrats to say if they did not do the banking giveaways to the right wing bankers that the US as we know it was over.

Now note in another plant a few hundred miles away the Chrysler Belvidere Illinois plant is about to begin production and is going from was closing and several hundred employees under Bush and will have close to 5000 just at that plant not including the thousands of support jobs by other companies providing other raw materials and assemblies. this car will be a 40mpg sporty looking re-tooled car to be exported around the world. This was because government Obama bailed out the auto industry.

again Paul Ryan's lie that Obama could have done anything or was responsible to it closing about the janesville plant should be taken to task, the plants main assembly line was closed in Dec 2008 with the small crew remaining to close out some other line that had been decided in October. again Ryan does not tell the truth the decision was made in October. When Bush was in power and Ryan the career politician was in government.

Last edited by real-human on Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:49 pm; edited 2 times in total

Do your own homework. My intent is to point you to the facts, not read them to you. Ownership is not a valid metric of bias; it's what's published that counts.
.

Quote:

Been there, done that, for thousand of pages. Read 'em and get back to us; you're late to the party.

no facts to the subject again to show a liberal media.

thanks for your service, but I though you said you worked for Boeing also...

again right wing former attorney general Under Bush Sr was hired by CBS to review the rather case. He concluded he could not prove the documents were not accurate.

you being in the military should realize that only three living people in the world could have known those events, the Secretary and Bush one other officer. Both said they remembered all these issues being brought up. Other than a fly on the wall who in the world could have made up documents that matched exactly those people recollection of the events with not one error in time format. You have to realize it is absolutely impossible for those documents not to be accurate about the events to fit the proper timeline and what only these living people who said they do remember it..

Admit? "Corporations"? I'm proud to state that my whole family's primary income has been compensation for service to our country in the USAF. What have you voluntarily contributed to your country? Besides, (honest) corporations, of all sizes, are a cornerstone of this nation's extended success.

hmm every generation of my family has volunteered for the military thanks for asking. My fathers lessons were good enough for me to understand for people that are liberal the military will hate you if you are outed. I did try the CIA (to be a force of change there) but even they do not like people who are in the upper 1% in math logic that are liberals.

Have a fraternity brother that is is a major right wing fanatic from the air force who I admire for at least his honesty. He tells me liberals can be in the military as officers but if you are ever outed it is the end of your career for advancing.

as we know for enlisted they are brainwashed to hate americans in basic training and as time goes, the US military teaches and encourages our military to hate americans (if they are liberals).

can you tell me if the military has ever put opps people in as reporters or into the media. Or any other clandestine department of the US put in plants or pay reporters.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum